I think so. The way it is now, it's just a way for companies to hold on to characters and ideas far longer than anyone originally intended them to. I've heard that it's mostly Disney's fault, trying to keep Mickey Mouse from going public domain. But it's a losing battle that is hurting art and expression in the process. Characters like Batman and Superman, who were created by people long dead and are are close to 100 years old should be in the public domain. People should be able to use those characters who are part of our collective culture and history in their own stories.

I'd say up to the original creator's death. If I created a character that everyone loved, and it because a cultural fixture, i'd be happy to leave that character and world to my fans after my death. Why should other people keep making money off it when I'm in the ground?

>>2841Yes. Though I'm personally rather opposed to the concept outside of writing.Even covers, I'm a tad wishy-washy on.

I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with someone making Harry Potter and the Chamber of Potted Plants, with special guest Johnson from Halo.As long as they aren't literally just reprinting the original books, I say let people make spinoffs if they want.

>>2865But what if someone wants to make "Harry Potter and the Secret that he is a child molester"? Something that tarnishes the character. I'm for the public domain like I said in >>2845, but this is an interesting question.

>>2845>I'd say up to the original creator's death.What if the original creator is a corporation? What about a movie, where thousands of people are involved in creating the movie? What if the author of a book has a heart attack and dies right after the book is printed?

>>2874>Then he can no longer make any money from the IP, so it becomes public domain.It seems like that would have the undesirable effect of making publishers reluctant to work with authors who are nearing death?

>>2887Being sold is a pretty big deal, I think. On the internet, you have to go looking for fanfiction. It's segregated from anything official. In a store or online marketplace, it's sitting right there next to the original work.

>>2889I'm not really convinced for the 'sitting right next to the original work'. I guess it depends on how you sort things, though. I'd've sorted by author, personally.As for in the general store, if that's what you're getting at, it seems like saying strollers and dildos are sold right next to eachother, because Amazon sells both products.

>>2900They're usually sorted by author within those categories, though. You go to the fantasy section, and your books by one major author tend to be together, A-Z. At least htat was the case at the last store I went to.

>>2841>Are current copyright terms too long?Probably.>How long should copyright last?If I have to come up with a number, um...25 years. I think that would cover most of the profit creators would earn, and if the goal is to ensure creators earn enough to justify creation, exerting legal resources to protect a trailing trickle of sales makes little sense. True, some things gain a cult following long after their release, but I'm not sure that factors in the economics of creative efforts.

Just do away with copyright. In the modern age of piracy I'm not sure it's even working. At most of say we keep a short limit on selling an absolutely identical copy of things, and perhaps add a law to make the source of what you're selling really obvious. JK Rowling's name should be prominent on her books, but absent from someone else's, who should instead have their name clearly labeled on the cover.

>>2917>>2917>Just do away with copyright. In the modern age of piracy I'm not sure it's even workingIt doesn't prevent people who want it for free from pirating it. But it works pretty well at ensuring that people who DO want to support the creators give their money to the right people. Making movies costs money, and I'm not sure how they would be funded without any copyright protection.

>>2841Yes. They're very much too long. I think about 30 years is pretty reasonable. It leaves enough time for publishers to make money off the process so writers can still effectively work with publishers in a workable time frame, but doesn't leave us in a draconian state we're in now where copyright is a joke that nobody even takes seriously because it's over a fucking century now. Funny part is, these companies make most of their money on opening weekend anyway, and then another bump once the dvd is released, so it wouldn't really hurt these giant publishers much at all.

The way it is now is basically the result of corporations having free rein over the legal system via lobbying, and with the internet making information fast and free, nobody right now has any respect for the 110 year bullshit current copyright law. They'll do what they can to avoid legal ramifications, but nobody, not even the corporations, are looking at the century-long copyright rule and saying "yea, that seems reasonable".